The USA Of Hate

[Foxfyre]

Bottom line.... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO place in The Constitution for sharia law.... PERIOD!

We are Americans and we all SHOULD be dealt with in the same manner, under the same laws.

I disagree in part and agree in part. If Sharia Law calls for the execution of a person for an act of sexual misconduct, anyone who tried to enforce that decision in the US would be guilty of attempted murder. Just as any other religious person, an American Muslim must abide by US law first and his faith second when he makes choices that impact the rights of others.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, this is exactly what does happen now.

On the other hand, if two adults who are American Muslims wanted to submit their property line dispute to a religious court rather than a local civil court, I see no reason why they should be prevented from doing so.

Even with property laws, the Muslims shoud follow the law of their community, county, state, or whatever because property lines are a matter of permanent public record and should be uniformly established and adjudicated. There should not be one set of laws for Muslims and another set of laws for everybody else. That is a slippery slope we should never allow ourselves to start down.

Muslim, like everybody else, are free to use whatever non violent and non coercive means they wish to mediate a dispute and come to an agreement. But they should have to file the same paperwork under the same laws as everybody else.

Having once worked in a law office that, among other things, did a lot of title searches, I can't imagine the nightmare that would result from different laws applying to different people in the same general area.

 

[konradv]

Sharia courts would "respect the establisment of religion."

You posted about "extrapolations"?!?! What about your post above, which is an irrelevancy? The OP was about legitimacy, not sharia.

 

[Madeline]

Bottom line.... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO place in The Constitution for sharia law.... PERIOD!

We are Americans and we all SHOULD be dealt with in the same manner, under the same laws.

I disagree in part and agree in part. If Sharia Law calls for the execution of a person for an act of sexual misconduct, anyone who tried to enforce that decision in the US would be guilty of attempted murder. Just as any other religious person, an American Muslim must abide by US law first and his faith second when he makes choices that impact the rights of others.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, this is exactly what does happen now.

On the other hand, if two adults who are American Muslims wanted to submit their property line dispute to a religious court rather than a local civil court, I see no reason why they should be prevented from doing so.

Even with property laws, the Muslims shoud follow the law of their community, county, state, or whatever because property lines are a matter of permanent public record and should be uniformly established and adjudicated. There should not be one set of laws for Muslims and another set of laws for everybody else. That is a slippery slope we should never allow ourselves to start down.

Muslim, like everybody else, are free to use whatever non violent and non coercive means they wish to mediate a dispute and come to an agreement. But they should have to file the same paperwork under the same laws as everybody else.

Having once worked in a law office that, among other things, did a lot of title searches, I can't imagine the nightmare that would result from different laws applying to different people in the same general area.

Of course. I am not advocating that whatever resolution is agreed to, the parties do less than make new deeds and record them.

 

[chanel]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-sharia-its-not-just-a-bumper-sticker.html

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree in part and agree in part. If Sharia Law calls for the execution of a person for an act of sexual misconduct, anyone who tried to enforce that decision in the US would be guilty of attempted murder. Just as any other religious person, an American Muslim must abide by US law first and his faith second when he makes choices that impact the rights of others.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, this is exactly what does happen now.

On the other hand, if two adults who are American Muslims wanted to submit their property line dispute to a religious court rather than a local civil court, I see no reason why they should be prevented from doing so.

Even with property laws, the Muslims shoud follow the law of their community, county, state, or whatever because property lines are a matter of permanent public record and should be uniformly established and adjudicated. There should not be one set of laws for Muslims and another set of laws for everybody else. That is a slippery slope we should never allow ourselves to start down.

Muslim, like everybody else, are free to use whatever non violent and non coercive means they wish to mediate a dispute and come to an agreement. But they should have to file the same paperwork under the same laws as everybody else.

Having once worked in a law office that, among other things, did a lot of title searches, I can't imagine the nightmare that would result from different laws applying to different people in the same general area.

Of course. I am not advocating that whatever resolution is agreed to, the parties do less than make new deeds and record them.

They already have the full right to use Sharia law to come to agreements now. But they cannot override existing rules and regulations governing the dispensation of property nor can they sidestep the legal process involved. Those title searches I previously mentioned are incredibly detailed and complicated citing easements involved, access to roads, any disputed territory the circumstances of that etc., but they are necessary to avoid legal disputes and difficulties later on. You start changing how the process works by allowing some of it to go on under Sharia Law, and I see nothing good that would ever come out of that.

 

[Madeline]

Even with property laws, the Muslims shoud follow the law of their community, county, state, or whatever because property lines are a matter of permanent public record and should be uniformly established and adjudicated. There should not be one set of laws for Muslims and another set of laws for everybody else. That is a slippery slope we should never allow ourselves to start down.

Muslim, like everybody else, are free to use whatever non violent and non coercive means they wish to mediate a dispute and come to an agreement. But they should have to file the same paperwork under the same laws as everybody else.

Having once worked in a law office that, among other things, did a lot of title searches, I can't imagine the nightmare that would result from different laws applying to different people in the same general area.

Of course. I am not advocating that whatever resolution is agreed to, the parties do less than make new deeds and record them.

They already have the full right to use Sharia law to come to agreements now. But they cannot override existing rules and regulations governing the dispensation of property nor can they sidestep the legal process involved. Those title searches I previously mentioned are incredibly detailed and complicated citing easements involved, access to roads, any disputed territory the circumstances of that etc., but they are necessary to avoid legal disputes and difficulties later on. You start changing how the process works by allowing some of it to go on under Sharia Law, and I see nothing good that would ever come out of that.

Fair enough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sharia courts would "respect the establisment of religion."

Not unless they only dealt with religious issues, Revere. E.g., excommunication, reconciliation, etc. If they attempted to cope with domestic violence, other criminal acts and family law, they'd usurp the jurisdiction of the US courts. I don't see that ever passing constititutional muster here.

They don't only deal with religious issues. Sharia deals with a wide spectrum of civil law ranging from marital rights to banking and finance.

Did you not read what Madeline wrote?

 

[Madeline]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-sharia-its-not-just-a-bumper-sticker.html

Let's assume the author is correct, chanel. Do you advocate cutting off all access to alternative dispute resolution processes or just those that are religious? Or just the few religious ones that are connected with Islam? (BTW, the lack of written orders and transcripts, no discovery before trial and no appeal from the arbitrator's decision are all also features of any AAA decision.)

How could such a thing be compatible with US constitutional law?

 

[Foxfyre]

The main problem with Sharia Law is that it provides no protection for unalienable rights of the people, such rights guaranteed by our Constitution. The UK made the mistake of allowing Sharia Law to apply in some circumstances. I am guessing they are rethinking that now:

. . . .Now a report, Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.

There has been much controversy about Muslim arbitration tribunals, which have attracted attention because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.

But sharia councils, which are charities, are equally harmful since their mediation differs little from arbitration. Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.

There is also danger to those at risk of domestic violence. In one study, four out of 10 women attending sharia courts were party to civil injunctions against their husbands.

"In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women. Furthermore … husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and access to children. Settlements which in effect were being discussed under the shadow of law."

An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage. . . .
What isn't wrong with Sharia law? | Law | guardian.co.uk

 

[Madeline]

Not unless they only dealt with religious issues, Revere. E.g., excommunication, reconciliation, etc. If they attempted to cope with domestic violence, other criminal acts and family law, they'd usurp the jurisdiction of the US courts. I don't see that ever passing constititutional muster here.

They don't only deal with religious issues. Sharia deals with a wide spectrum of civil law ranging from marital rights to banking and finance.

Did you not read what Madeline wrote?

Two American citizens cannot deprive a court of exclusive jurisdiction where it exists...and all crimes are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA, criminal court and American penal system. You and I cannot, e.g., agree between us what I will pay in child support if we divorce. We can make a prenuptial agreement we hope will be given great weight by a family court. And if I want you to inherit my property, I need to make a will (or hope the law of intestate will award it to you).

 

[chanel]

Madeline - I am no expert in the law, but the mere fact that people are having this conversation, and debating the "merits" of Sharia courts proves that it is "creeping.". It
is hardly Islamophobic. It is important and relevant and needs to be discussed freely without the childish name calling. Food for thought.

 

[boedicca]

If Sharia Law is limited to a scope similar to that of a Rabbinical Court, then there is already a precedent in the U.S. The problem is when it tries to trump constitutional law. That should not be allowed.

 

[chanel]

We are in a new phase of a very old war against religious dogma and radical Islam and the Obvious elephant in the room is that the majority of incitement to racial hatred and violence is coming from the Islamic world, yet it is those who are brave enough to point that fact out, to point out the fact that the West is engaged in a conflict with theocratic totalitarian and fascist ideologies and regimes, who are then targeted for ‘spreading hatred’ for those regimes and violent ideas.

John F Kennedy once said “we are not afraid to entrust the people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its own people.”

'Legal Jihad': How Islamist 'lawfare' is stifling Western free speech on Radical Islam - The Henry Jackson Society

 

[Foxfyre]

Madeline - I am no expert in the law, but the mere fact that people are having this conversation, and debating the "merits" of Sharia courts proves that it is "creeping.". It
is hardly Islamophobic. It is important and relevant and needs to be discussed freely without the childish name calling. Food for thought.

I am an expert on neither the law nor the Qu'ran, but I have enough knowledge of both to be at least a little bit dangerous.

But my understanding of Sharia Law is that it requires prosylization of all. The ultimate goal of Islam is to put the whole Earth under authority of Allah. And we see it happen in nation after nation with large Islamic majorities. Even when there is a measure of religious tolerance, it is muted and controlled, and all are expected to abide by Islamic Law. Individual liberties are suppressed. Modern, most particularly Western, values are suppressed.

So we turn that around to the new experiment--the great Satan--the United States of America with law that recognizes and provides complete tolerance for all religions and faiths or no religion at all if that is what somebody wants. The government maintain pretty much a hands off position where Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple et al are concerned. BUT.....religious faith does not trump the U.S. Constitution and/or the law of the land, and no group can expect preferential treatment over any other group.

Muslims must expect no worse and no better treatment and not more or less privileges than that enjoyed by any other religious group in America. Use Sharia Law in the home and in the churches as they choose so long as that does not violate the Constitutional rights of any individual. And that single provision pretty much restricts Sharia Law to very little of what it otherwise would be.

 

[chanel]

Several states have proposed legislation preventing such an occurrence. That's not Islamophobia. Its preventative medicine.

 

[Madeline]

Madeline - I am no expert in the law, but the mere fact that people are having this conversation, and debating the "merits" of Sharia courts proves that it is "creeping.". It
is hardly Islamophobic. It is important and relevant and needs to be discussed freely without the childish name calling. Food for thought.

Not everything we fear is real, chanel. And I dun think I have name called, but if I have, my apologies.

 

[Madeline]

The main problem with Sharia Law is that it provides no protection for unalienable rights of the people, such rights guaranteed by our Constitution. The UK made the mistake of allowing Sharia Law to apply in some circumstances. I am guessing they are rethinking that now:

. . . .Now a report, Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.

There has been much controversy about Muslim arbitration tribunals, which have attracted attention because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.

But sharia councils, which are charities, are equally harmful since their mediation differs little from arbitration. Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.

There is also danger to those at risk of domestic violence. In one study, four out of 10 women attending sharia courts were party to civil injunctions against their husbands.

"In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women. Furthermore … husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and access to children. Settlements which in effect were being discussed under the shadow of law."

An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage. . . .
What isn't wrong with Sharia law? | Law | guardian.co.uk

This is what I cannot understand, nor can I see it becoming an issue in the US. How can divorce and child custody issues be decided anywhere other than a civil family court? As I have said, parties here could submit a petition for an agreed order -- and it would usuallly be granted -- but that is a far cry from ceding jurisdiction.

BTW, there is no right to an attorney in any civil proceeding in the US, period. That right only attaches to criminal proceedings.

 

[Foxfyre]

The main problem with Sharia Law is that it provides no protection for unalienable rights of the people, such rights guaranteed by our Constitution. The UK made the mistake of allowing Sharia Law to apply in some circumstances. I am guessing they are rethinking that now:

. . . .Now a report, Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.

There has been much controversy about Muslim arbitration tribunals, which have attracted attention because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.

But sharia councils, which are charities, are equally harmful since their mediation differs little from arbitration. Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.

There is also danger to those at risk of domestic violence. In one study, four out of 10 women attending sharia courts were party to civil injunctions against their husbands.

"In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women. Furthermore … husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and access to children. Settlements which in effect were being discussed under the shadow of law."

An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage. . . .
What isn't wrong with Sharia law? | Law | guardian.co.uk

This is what I cannot understand, nor can I see it becoming an issue in the US. How can divorce and child custody issues be decided anywhere other than a civil family court? As I have said, parties here could submit a petition for an agreed order -- and it would usuallly be granted -- but that is a far cry from ceding jurisdiction.

BTW, there is no right to an attorney in any civil proceeding in the US, period. That right only attaches to criminal proceedings.

It starts with giving in a little here and there and allowing a group to have special privileges that others don't have. Like being able to settle property disputes outside the established law of the land.

Social Security started out as a 1% surcharge on a tiny percentage of a person's income. We were guaranteed it would never be more than that.

I no longer trust any privileges to not result in push for more....then more....then more.....then more. And the more we give in to special interest demands, the more difficult it becomes to say no to anybody.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christian believe that all should be witnessed to, the Great Commitment. Mormons believe all will have the opportunity to hear the word. Muslims are no different. And I don't see America being governed from Salt Lake City or from the Council of Churches. Islamic Law can be used to govern its faithful. Many denominations use their interpretation of the Bible to govern their congregations. Mormons do that through their priesthood channels. However, when any of this comes into conflict with statute or constitutional law, the religious laws must bend to the might of the secular law.

 

[American Horse]

Okay, all you Islamophobes, let's alter the US constitution and its laws so that you can tell us exactly what kind of country we'll all be living in if you get your way.

What alteration do we make to the First Amendment? Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, presumably y'all want to "define religion" so that Islam does not qualify? How so? What rights would American Muslims lose that they could not assert as free speech and freedom of assembly? I guess we need to curtail those as well?

My research did not turn up any SCOTUS decision directly on-point; "religion" is apparently rather undefined in US law at this time.

I assume we need to change our immigration laws, so that no (?) Middles Eastern person, resident of any Arab state or adherent of Islam can emigrate here? How so?

Do we eject non-citizen Muslims here on otherwise valid visas?

Do we force citizen Muslims into internment camps?

Do we pass new RICO laws, so suing Muslims is easier? How do we exempt the RCC from such laws -- or do we? You may want to look over the following lawsuit...a "christian" group in Tennessee is attempting to prevent the building of a mosque on the grounds that "Islam is not a religion".

Legitimacy of Islam at heart of Murfreesboro mosque suit | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

Let's have the conversation because I, for one, want to see exactly what y'all have planned for the land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave. I suspect I won't recognize my country when y'all get done making these changes.

Madeline, there is no movement to deprive Islam of full religious rights in this country, as there seems to be against Christianity for example. The distinction is one of seperating Islamic radicalism from Islam; it's the same as distinguishing illegal immigration from ordinary lawful immigration. Ordinary people understand the difference, and that the actd of confusing the difference is political rhetoric much more than actual fact.